The King v Brodie Collins-Haskins
[2023] NZHC 2195
•15 August 2023
SUPPRESSION ORDERS EXIST IN RELATION TO ASPECTS OF THIS JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO S 205 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011: PARAGRAPHS [107]-[115] HAVE BEEN REDACTED.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE
CRI-2021-070-4221
[2023] NZHC 2195
THE KING v
BRODIE COLLINS-HASKINS
Hearing: 15 August 2023 Appearances:
A J Pollett and C A Bourke for the Crown B R Smith for Mr Collins-Haskins
Judgment:
15 August 2023
SENTENCING REMARKS OF HARLAND J
Introduction
[1] Mr Collins-Haskins, you appear before the Court for sentence today, having been found guilty by the jury of 13 charges arising from the Police operation known as Operation Silk. You were found guilty of:
R v COLLINS-HASKINS [2023] NZHC 2195 [15 August 2023]
(a) one charge of participating in an organised criminal group,1 the objective of which was to organise, finance and be involved in the sale and/or supply of class A, B and C drugs;
(b) secondly, two charges of possessing methamphetamine for supply;2
(c) thirdly, seven charges of supplying methamphetamine;3 and
(d) fourthly, one charge of discharging a firearm with reckless disregard for the safety of others;4 and
(e) lastly, two charges of unlawfully possessing prohibited firearms.5
[2] The maximum penalties for your offending range from life imprisonment for the methamphetamine offending, 10 years’ imprisonment for participating in the organised criminal group, seven years’ imprisonment for discharging a firearm with reckless disregard, and five years’ imprisonment for unlawfully possessing a prohibited firearm.
[3] Your involvement in Operation Silk was as the lead Auckland contact for the Mongols Motorcycle Club (Mongols) in New Zealand in their drug distribution network throughout New Zealand. And I will say more about this shortly.
[4] You faced trial by jury with eight other defendants. Prior to trial, another seven defendants pleaded guilty to a large number of charges, obviating the need for them to be part of it.
[5] In respect of all of the methamphetamine charges, you dispute the amount of methamphetamine involved, which the Crown contends, based on the verdicts, should be kilograms of methamphetamine, in total between 14 and 18 kgs. Your position at
1 Crimes Act 1961, s 98A - Charge 1, Crown Charge List (end of trial), 1 November 2022.
2 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(f) and 6(2) - Charges 14 and 28, Crown Charge List (end of trial), 1 November 2022.
3 Misuse of Drugs Act, ss 6(1)(c) and 6(2) - Charges 29, 34, 36, 38, 42, 47 and 61, Crown Charge List (end of trial), 1 November 2022.
4 Crimes Act, ss 198(2) and 66(2) - Charge 54, Crown Charge List (end of trial), 1 November 2022.
5 Arms Act 1983, ss 50A - Charges 55 and 58A, Crown Charge List (end of trial), 1 November 2022.
trial was that there was no methamphetamine therefore, although challenging the quantum contended for by the Crown, for that reason, you do not offer an alternative amount. Rather, your counsel highlighted reasons why the Crown’s assessment of quantum should not apply. And I will address this later in my sentencing remarks.
[6] The process I will adopt in sentencing you will be, first, to provide some background detail about Operation Silk and your role in it. I will then address the facts relevant to your offending, including my assessment of the quantum of methamphetamine involved. I will next address the appropriate starting point for your offending, the lead charges of which are the methamphetamine charges, taking into account the purposes and principles of sentencing relevant to the supply of class A drugs and the case law relevant to that assessment of that starting point. I will take your conviction for participating in an organised criminal group into account when setting the starting point for your methamphetamine offending. I will next consider what uplift should apply to recognise your firearms convictions. And finally, I will assess personal and mitigating matters before reaching my final view about the appropriate end term of imprisonment that you will serve, including whether a minimum period of imprisonment, which I will refer to as an MPI, is warranted.
Your role in Operation Silk
[7] Starting with your role in Operation Silk. Operation Silk concerned an extensive Police investigation into the activities of the newly formed Mongols Motorcycle Club in New Zealand in 2019 and 2020, who had established a methamphetamine and other class A, B and C drug distribution business throughout New Zealand.
[8] Jim Thacker was the president of the Mongols. He was deported from Australia on 6 September 2018. Prior to his deportation, he was the president of the Beenleigh Bandidos Motorcycle Club (Bandidos) and by 23 January 2019 he was established as the vice president of the newly established chapter of the Bandidos in the North Island of New Zealand.
[9] Hone Ronaki6 was deported from Australia on 2 October 2018. He also was a member of the Bandidos and became the president of the North Island chapter of the Bandidos.
[10] Leon Huritu was deported from Australia on 15 December 2016. He was also a patched member of the Bandidos who then joined the Mongols.
[11] You are an Australian citizen. You were affiliated to the Bandidos in Australia and had a close friendship with Mr Thacker. You travelled to New Zealand in late 2018, the Provision of Advice to Courts (PAC) report noting your comment that this was to “make sure a mate who was deported was ok”. I infer that this “mate” was indeed Mr Thacker.
[12] On 13 December 2018, shortly after you arrived in New Zealand, you were charged with assault with intent to injure. As a result of this, you say the Police confiscated your passport. As you head me say today, there is little provided to me to independently confirm or explain the background, but it may well have been a condition of any bail granted to you on that charge. On 3 May this year, you were sentenced in respect of this charge to imprisonment for one year and 14 days. So, it must have been a serious charge. I return to this later in my sentencing remarks. However, it appears to me that when you came to New Zealand you brought with you your gang affiliation and attitudes.
[13] The Mongols established itself in New Zealand at some point after 1 January 2019 when Jim Thacker, Hone Ronaki and others were de-patched from the Bandidos. The Mongols are an international gang established in 1969 in the USA. It is a One Percenter Club which effectively refers to the fact that 99 per cent of motorcycle riders are law abiding citizens but one per cent are “outlaw”.
[14] The Mongols became involved in dealing the drugs I have referred to but predominantly, it would seem, dealing in methamphetamine, MDMA and, on several occasions, the class B controlled drug 25iNBOMe.
6 I refer to Mr Ronaki as “Hone Ronaki” throughout to distinguish him from two other defendants involved in this operation who have the same surname.
[15] At some point after this and while in New Zealand, you left the Bandidos and became a patched member of the Mongols. The Crown case, as you heard at trial and has been repeated today, is that you were a high-ranking or influential member of the Mongols. The protected witness was unable to say what your specific role was but he considered that you and Mr Petrowski were “up there”.7
[16] You were part of the Mongols’ Ciphr phone network, again a matter referred to by the protected witness in his evidence but also evident from screenshots taken of communications from the protected witness’s Ciphr phone after the termination of Operation Silk. The Ciphr phone network is an end-to-end encrypted system, meaning that calls and messages are unable to be accessed by anyone who is not part of that network. This prevents communications being intercepted by anyone but particularly the Police. I accept that the Ciphr phones, which were referred to during the trial as “Tings”, were used to undertake discussions about matters to do with the Mongols’ drug dealing business, as was Wickr, an encrypted app, even though they might also have been used for other more ordinary law-abiding communications. You were known as “B Diddy” in Ciphr phone, Wickr and other communications. You were also known as “Silvs” or “Silver”.
[17] Although your counsel submitted, and we heard today again, that you were a person who obeyed the commands of others, the Crown case, and we heard this again today, was that you were the most senior Auckland connection for the Mongols at that time. Certainly, the Ciphr phone screenshots, which the Police managed to obtain from the protected witness’s Ciphr phone after many of the Mongols were arrested at termination of Operation Silk, indicate that you were ready to take charge.8 On 23 June 2020, you said “so brothers … we need to sort out what’s our best move from here. so in terms of structure I’ll got nat till the bros out [sic] 6 is new nat VP everyone sweet with that”.9
[18] It is easy to infer that your reference to “nat” means that you intended to take over the national presidency role until Mr Thacker was released, and the new national
7 Notes of evidence, pg 120, lines 1-30.
8 Photograph booklet, folder F, tab 61.
9 Photograph booklet, folder F, tab 61, pg 8.
vice president was to be Mr Ross, whose Ciphr name was “666”. You would not have been offering to become the interim national president had you not had significant standing within the Mongols. I will return to this in my assessment of how that impacts on your role in the supply of methamphetamine which I have said I intend to deal with as part of the starting point I adopt for that offending.
Your offending
[19] I now deal with your offending. I start by outlining the facts as they relate to your offending and first deal with the methamphetamine and organised criminal group offending charge to do with drugs.
Methamphetamine and organised criminal group offending (drugs)
Charge 1
[20] You were found guilty by the jury of participating in an organised criminal group, between 1 January 2019 and 23 June 2020, which shared the objective of distributing and supplying, as I said, class A, B and C controlled drugs, in the main, methamphetamine, but also the other drugs that I have referred to, at Tauranga and elsewhere in New Zealand. You, as well as Mr Thacker, Mr Huritu, Mr Petrowski, Mr Ramsden, Hone Ronaki and Whana Ronaki have all been found, either by the jury or earlier plea, to have been involved in this organised criminal group with this particular objective.
[21] Your involvement in the organised criminal group, with the objective I have just outlined, was evident from your methamphetamine offending.
[22] In relation to the methamphetamine offending, I will return to the facts that relate to charge 14, which is the representative charge of possessing methamphetamine for supply, after I have addressed the facts that relate to charges 28, 29, 34, 36, 38, 42,
47 and 61, which all deal with specific occasions of either possessing methamphetamine for supply or supplying methamphetamine. Where the charges are related, I will refer to the facts concerning them together.
Charges 28 and 29
[23] Charge 28 is a charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply between 23 June 2019 and 23 June 2020, where you and Mr Thacker were found guilty of possessing two kilograms of methamphetamine for supply to “Irish” and both of you, as parties, supplying the same methamphetamine to “Irish” at Otaki.
[24] The evidence on these charges came from the protected witness. His evidence was that, at Mr Thacker’s direction, he travelled to Auckland to uplift two kilograms of methamphetamine which he understood had been organised by you but which he could not recall the person from whom it was uplifted. He did however recall that the methamphetamine was in Glad bags. As a result of other evidence at trial, this is likely to have been methamphetamine uplifted in 2020 as, by then, the better quality “cleaner” methamphetamine packaged in teabags had run out and the Glad bag methamphetamine was what was being supplied.
[25] The protected witness said that he was then instructed to cut the methamphetamine and deliver it to Mr Ross. Given that the protected witness said he was the only one trusted by Mr Thacker to cut the methamphetamine because he did not use it himself, I infer that the instruction for him to do so came from Mr Thacker.
[26] The delivery that was arranged to occur in Otaki was arranged by Mr Ross. The protected witness said that Mr Ross had arranged for “Irish” from the Christchurch Mongols chapter to meet him there and to uplift the methamphetamine from him. He provided details about where this occurred, the car “Irish” was driving and who he was with.
[27] By their verdicts, the jury must have accepted that the protected witness uplifted the methamphetamine from Auckland at your direction and must have accepted that you knew the methamphetamine was destined for the South Island and would be supplied to a person nominated by Mr Ross to uplift it but, overall, for the benefit of the Mongols, of which you were a senior member.
[28] The protected witness’s evidence was that the methamphetamine he was responsible for uplifting from Auckland and couriering to the South Island was always in kilogram amounts, and that is one which I accept.
[29] Although he was not too sure who he picked up the methamphetamine from on this occasion in Auckland, he referred to the amount being two kilos and he said it would have been organised through “B-Diddy”. As I have mentioned, “B-Diddy” was one of your nicknames. Although discrepancies were referred to in the protected witness’s evidence where he said in his first interview with the Police that he had met “Irish” in Christchurch not at Otaki, this discrepancy was obviously not considered important by the jury as they found both you and Mr Thacker guilty of this charge. And I must sentence you on the basis of the jury’s verdict.
[30] The evidence from the protected witness was clear that the amount uplifted on this instance was two kilograms. The fact that the uplift and delivery were done at the direction of Mr Thacker the Mongols president and yourself a senior Mongols member, in my view, supports the claim that the amount was kilograms.
[31] I sentence you on the basis that the methamphetamine referred to in charges 28 and 29 amounted to two kilograms.
Charge 34
[32] The jury found you guilty of supplying methamphetamine between 13 November 2019 and 4 December 2019 at Auckland by supplying two kilograms of it to the protected witness for Mr Thacker and Hone Ronaki and I infer for the benefit of the Mongols. This charge related to the first trip to Auckland described by the protected witness where he said he was directed by Mr Thacker to go to Auckland to contact you and organise a place to meet. You and he arranged by Ciphr phone to meet at the McDonalds and Subway carpark near the Auckland airport. He described you driving a Toyota RAV 4 motor vehicle (MMR875), which you had hired. The evidence about the period over which this vehicle was hired helped to establish the time when this and the second trip to Auckland occurred.
[33] The protected witness referred to your strong Australian accent. He said you gave him two kilos of methamphetamine, packaged in shiny yellow and green foil teabags which were vacuum sealed. These each contained 500 grams. The exchange was a quick one with both of you thereafter going your separate ways. The protected witness said he put the methamphetamine behind the passenger seat of his vehicle, drove home to Te Puke and held onto it until Mr Thacker directed him to deliver it to Mr Ross in Christchurch.
[34] I accept the protected witness’s evidence that the methamphetamine you supplied to him on this occasion was as he described it and that it amounted to two kilograms.
Charge 36
[35] Now dealing with Charge 36. This concerns the second trip to Auckland where the protected witness said he met you, again at some time between 13 [November] and 4 December 2019. On this occasion, the Crown case was that one or more kilograms of methamphetamine was supplied by you to the protected witness, this time at the Auckland airport plane viewing area.
[36] The protected witness said he was directed by Mr Thacker, nicknamed “JD”, to meet with you to pick up the methamphetamine. The vehicle in which you were situated was the same RAV 4 vehicle. You were driving with someone called Isaac as your passenger who had a “little baby” with him. As with the earlier pick-up, this methamphetamine was packaged in shiny teabags that were vacuum sealed, but this time they were placed in a canvas shopping bag.
[37] The jury, by their verdict, accepted that you gave and intended to give the protected witness the methamphetamine knowing it was methamphetamine. As to quantum, and in fairness to you, because it was not specifically mentioned by the protected witness but accepting that it would have been at least a kilogram, I adopt one kilogram as the quantum for this charge.
Charge 38
[38] This charge concerns the protected witness’s third trip to Auckland during the same time period I have already outlined. He said he uplifted two to three kilograms from you, again at the Auckland airport plane viewing area. On this occasion, he said that you and others wanted to take him around Auckland to show him a few places so that he would be more comfortable meeting at better locations in the future because he did not know Auckland very well. No doubt you were conscious that the places you met, especially the airport plane viewing area, were very public and there was an obvious need for discretion.
[39] The protected witness said he uplifted two kilograms of methamphetamine packaged in “the same four vacuum sealed bags and in a canvas bag”.
[40] I accept his evidence about quantum and adopt two kilograms for this transaction.
Charge 42
[41] You faced this charge with Mr Thacker. The jury found you both guilty of supplying methamphetamine between 1 January and 25 March 2020 to the protected witness, which was subsequently delivered to Mr Huritu who was also found guilty of possessing the same methamphetamine for the purposes of on-supply to others.
[42] In finding you guilty of this charge, the jury must have accepted the evidence of the protected witness who described the general pattern of his trips to Auckland in which, following Mr Thacker’s instructions, he would pick up methamphetamine from you and take it back to his address in Te Puke where it would be inspected at times by Hone Ronaki. However, he described one exception to this pattern which is embodied in charge 42.
[43] On this occasion, he described uplifting three kilograms of methamphetamine from Auckland about a week prior to the COVID lockdown. He said he dropped it off at Mr Huritu’s house in Mount Maunganui. He recalled this situation because he said Mr Huritu had laughed at him when he had arrived because one of his headlights was
not working and there was therefore a risk that he would have been stopped by the Police because of this. Although your defence was that the protected witness had not clearly indicated that this methamphetamine was sourced from you because he had described picking up methamphetamine from more than one person in Auckland, but the jury, by their verdict, must not have accepted your defence.
[44] As to the amount of methamphetamine, the protected witness was clear that he uplifted three kilograms on this occasion and so I fix the amount of methamphetamine at three kilograms.
Charge 47
[45] You faced this charge with Mr Thacker and Hone Ronaki. It alleged a supply of methamphetamine via the protected witness to Mr Ross. The jury found you and Hone Ronaki but not Mr Thacker guilty of this charge.
[46] The protected witness told the jury that he picked up two or three kilograms of methamphetamine from you in Auckland but did not provide any details about it. He then said he took the methamphetamine to Te Puke where it eventually made its way to the South Island. Two kilograms of methamphetamine were dropped off in Christchurch and he then carried on to Dunedin with two clean ounces he had extracted from the methamphetamine, at the direction of Hone Ronaki, which was passed on to someone at Hone Ronaki’s direction.
[47] Your culpability is limited to the supply in Auckland to the protected witness. The jury, by their verdict, accepted the protected witness’s evidence that you supplied methamphetamine to him on this occasion. There was sufficient detail about what the protected witness did with the methamphetamine when he returned to Te Puke to establish that the amount he uplifted from you was two kilograms. He cut and stored the methamphetamine himself, one kilo at a time. He was clear in his evidence that he took two kilograms and two ounces with him to Christchurch. I assess the quantum for this charge as two kilograms.
Charge 61
[48] Charge 61 concerned the supply of methamphetamine by you to Fred Whare and Matthew Ramsden at Denny’s, Wairau Park on the North Shore of Auckland late at night on 9 February 2020. Fred Whare pleaded guilty prior to trial to a charge of possessing the methamphetamine you supplied to him and a charge of supplying that methamphetamine.10 Matthew Ramsden was found guilty of it by the jury.11 This methamphetamine was then delivered to Hone Ronaki, who pleaded guilty to being in possession of methamphetamine for supply in relation to that delivery.
[49] The Crown evidence against you relied on CCTV footage taken outside Denny’s which showed a grey Holden Captiva, with the registration MLL659, which the Crown contended was your then partner’s car, which it said was driven by you.12 The Crown case was that Mr Whare and Mr Ramsden travelled to Auckland to the Denny’s carpark meeting point. Mr Whare then got out of the vehicle he was travelling in, which was Mr Ramsden’s vehicle, which had parked alongside the Captiva. He got into the Holden Captiva and was supplied with methamphetamine by you to take back to Te Puke. The Crown case was that the methamphetamine was then to be used by the Mongols for on-supply to others.
[50] Your defence at trial was that there was no evidence about who was in the car and what was exchanged, only a reference beforehand to Fred Whare picking something up from Silvs (one of your nicknames) and that the car was one that appeared to be similar to yours.
[51]Again, the jury, by their verdict, did not accept your defence.
[52] Quantum is an issue. I assessed this when I sentenced Mr Ramsden.13 Rather than the two to four kilograms the Crown contended was involved, because of a text Hone Ronaki had sent indicating that only half of it had been received, I assessed the quantum to be half a kilogram of methamphetamine. I did not accept that the amount
10 Charges 93 and 94.
11 Charges 62 and 63.
12 Exhibit 7B.
13 R v Ramsden [2023] NZHC 1626 at [22].
uplifted was only grams or ounces because of my view, accepting the jury’s verdict, that you would not have been involved in this deal if the amount was only grams or ounces. For Mr Ramsden, I found that your oversight of the deal indicated that what was supplied was a large quantity.14
[53]I assess the quantum for this charge to be half a kilogram.
Charge 14
[54] Lastly, I deal with the facts relating to Charge 14. This is the representative charge of possessing methamphetamine for supply to others between 1 January 2019 and 25 March 2020 at Auckland, Bay of Plenty and elsewhere in New Zealand. It refers to trips the protected witness took from Auckland to Te Puke and Christchurch and return, that were not covered by other specific charges in the Crown Charge List.
[55] Although the protected witness said he did many trips to the South Island – about once a fortnight – he was challenged about the number of trips he did to the South Island as part of the general challenge to his credibility at trial. The fairest way to resolve this, in my view, is to adopt what he said to the Police in his initial interview about the number of trips he did for the Mongols to the South Island. In this interview, he said there were six trips to the South Island, something less than what he said at trial. As three trips are covered by the other charges, I find that there were three additional trips and supplies by you covered by charge 14, all of around a kilogram of methamphetamine each. The protected witness was clear, and I accept, that all of the methamphetamine delivered down south comprised kilograms.
[56] This means that I adopt three kilograms to represent the additional methamphetamine covered by this representative charge.
[57] So, I apologise that I have had to go through that in detail Mr Collins-Haskins but that has been largely as result because quantum was challenged, and I am not being critical of that fact. But I have needed to go through some detail to record why I have got to that position.
14 At [21].
Conclusion on quantum for methamphetamine
[58] But, what it means, in respect of all the charges for which you were found guilty by the jury, I have assessed the quantum of methamphetamine involved to be
15.5 kilograms.
Arms Act offending
Charges 54, 55 and 58A
[59] I now need to deal with your Arms Act offending and this is charges 54, 55 and 58A.
[60] These charges arise from the incident that occurred in the evening of 28 January 2020 when the property at 26 Haukore Street, occupied by Corinna Taikato, who has familial links to the Mongrel Mob, was shot at by members of the Mongols. You faced charges 54 and 55 with Mr Thacker, Hone Ronaki and Mr Huritu. Charge 58A was a charge you faced on your own.
[61] The Crown case in relation to charge 54, which was the charge of discharging a firearm with reckless disregard, was that all four of you were involved in the incident either directly or as parties to it. The jury, by its verdict convicting you all of charges, that is 54 and 55, must have accepted the Crown case.
[62] Charge 55 relates to the prohibited firearms that were used in the incident and which you, together with the defendants to which I have already referred, were found guilty by the jury of unlawfully possessing.
[63] Charge 58A related to firearms that were found at 10 Doone Place, Massey, Auckland. Those firearms being prohibited firearms. And again, by their verdict, the jury found you guilty of unlawfully possessing them between 28 January and 1 May 2020. Two of the prohibited firearms found at 10 Doone Place in a padlocked toolbox were linked by ESR evidence to the Haukore Street shooting and the retaliatory shooting that occurred at 625 No. 2 Road (Hone Ronaki’s address) the next day.
[64] In relation to these firearms, the Crown case, which the jury must have accepted, was that 10 Doone Place was a safehouse for the Mongols in Auckland that you frequented. The evidence about this relied on Police surveillance data as well as polling data which suggested you were deliberately turning off your phone to avoid being placed in the vicinity of the safehouse.
[65] In relation to Charge 54, the protected witness said he saw you at Hone Ronaki’s address just before carloads of Mongols left for Haukore Street. He was at the address because his car was one of two used to transport the Mongols to Haukore Street. The protected witness was there when you arrived at Hone Ronaki’s address. He described you being congratulated by others when you arrived because you had driven all the way down from Auckland to help. Your defence was that there was no evidence that you had gone to Haukore Street or that you were seen with firearms.
[66] The jury, by their verdict, accepted that you were present at Hone Ronaki’s house just before the shooting at Haukore Street. I infer that, having travelled down from Auckland, it is not plausible that you would have not travelled in the car with the others to the address at Haukore Street where the shooting occurred. I consider you knew exactly why you were travelling down from Auckland and that you knew the purpose of it was to undertake a retaliatory attack. There is insufficient evidence to establish whether you were one of the shooters, however, that matters little given that you were a party to it and must have known, through your trusted and senior position in the Mongols, what was about to happen.
[67] In relation to Charge 55, for the same reasons, the verdict establishes that you were unlawfully in possession of the prohibited firearms used during the shooting at Haukore Street by virtue of having the ability to exercise some control over them.
[68] As well as some of the firearms used in that shooting having been found secreted at the Kaituna River, two of the prohibited firearms used at Haukore Street and in the retaliatory shooting by the Mongrel Mob at Hone Ronaki’s address later the next day were, as I have said, found at 10 Doone Place, Massey.
[69] The protected witness gave evidence that, on the instruction of Mr Thacker and Hone Ronaki after the shooting, he was instructed to deliver two AR-15s, that he understood had been used in the shooting, to you in Auckland. His instructions were that, when he arrived in Auckland, he was to message you to ask where they were to go. He said that he contacted you and you met with him near your home address but, because the address was “hot property”, you instructed him to take his children, who were with him, to Rainbow’s End and you would make the necessary arrangements. The protected witness’s evidence was clear about this and, in my view, believable.
[70] Much later in the day, you directed him to contact Cruz Tamatea, who was also a member of the Mongols, and an arrangement was made that you would meet him at Kemp Park. Kemp Park is near to Doone Place. The firearms were then handed over to him.
[71] I agree with the jury’s verdict that the evidence established that you were in unlawful possession of these two prohibited firearms because you had the ability to exercise control over them, given your connection to Doone Place, your seniority in the Mongols and your involvement in telling the protected witness where to drop the firearms off. As I have said, the firearms were found in a locked box in the garage at Doone Place. A fingerprint matching yours was found on the outside of the box. Although your defence to this aspect of the case was that it was only proof that you had touched the box at some stage, which could have been before the firearms were placed inside it, nonetheless, the jury, by their verdicts, found you were unlawfully in possession of these firearms because you had the ability to exercise control over them. I agree with the jury’s verdict about this.
Approach to sentencing
[72] So I now turn to the approach I must take to sentencing at law. In sentencing you, I must consider the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act 2002 (the Act). While I must impose what is the least restrictive outcome, I must also take into account the gravity of your offending, including your degree of culpability, that is your blameworthiness or responsibility for it, as well the seriousness of the offences. Any sentence I impose must denounce your conduct, deter both you and others from
committing similar offences in the future and hold you accountable for the harm your offending has caused in the community.
[73] Determining the appropriate sentence first requires me to set a point which will be based on the seriousness of the offending you have been found guilty of through your convictions and, having set the starting point, I will then consider your personal circumstances. These matters will reduce the starting point. And that produces the end sentence which I must, as a matter of law, ensure meets what we call the principles of totality and parity with other co-offenders, particularly those who have already been sentenced.
Starting point
[74] Dealing with the starting point first. Both lawyers agree that a starting point of a term of imprisonment is required. Both agree that your conviction for participating in the organised criminal group can be dealt with as a part of the starting point for your methamphetamine offending. However, both disagree about the level of the starting point required. The Crown submits 25 years’ imprisonment based on a quantum of 17.11+ kilograms. Your lawyer submitted that, if I accepted the Crown’s position on quantum, which you have heard I haven’t, a starting point of 13 years’ imprisonment would be appropriate but, otherwise, a lower starting point would be appropriate and should be adopted.
[75] The quantity of the methamphetamine involved is part of setting the starting point but the role you played in the Mongols’ commercial drug supply business is also an important consideration. And this is where the cases provide guidance and categorise quantity in terms of band15 and roles in terms of categories.16
[76] Quantity is assessed in five bands in Zhang v R,17 with band 5 being the most serious and applying to cases involving quantities of more than two kilograms. This applies in your case because I have determined the quantum of methamphetamine involved in your offending is 15.5 kilograms.
15 Zhang v R [2019] 3 NZLR 648.
16 Berkland v R [2022] NZSC 143.
17 Zhang v R, above n 15.
[77] In terms of role, as it is outlined in Berkland v R,18 the issue is whether you played a leading role as the Crown submits or whether, as your lawyer submitted, your role was at the lower end of significant.
[78] You agree you had an important operational role. But I also consider you were the main link for the Mongols in Auckland. You were a patched member and, although your lawyer submitted you did not have a long history of involvement with gangs, you were a member of the Bandidos in Australia where you developed your friendship with Mr Thacker.
[79] Your exact role in the Mongols is not especially clear but, like Mr Petrowski, I consider you were relatively senior. Your lawyer submitted you had to obey commands from others within the club’s structure, even when you did not want to. An example of this was, he submitted, your attendance at the meeting at No. 2 Road before the shooting at Haukore Street. He also submitted that you were effectively required to take responsibility for making arrangements for taking the firearms from the protected witness on the occasion where you directed him to meet up with Mr Tamatea later in the day at Kemp Park. I accept that you were not the highest up in the chain of authority and that you did take orders from others. However, in turn, you held influence over those below you.
[80] Your lawyer also submitted that your age and inexperience in drugs and drug dealing supports the submission that you held a lower significant role. While you were younger than some other defendants, particularly the more senior members, I do not find this a convincing argument. As noted above, you were a member of the Bandidos before becoming a patched member of the Mongols. This was not your first experience being part of a gang. The fact you supplied significant quantities of methamphetamine also indicates you must have had sufficient experience and knowledge to be trusted by those higher up with those amounts. In my view, your involvement did not arise from a place of naivety or being taken advantage of by others.
18 Berkland v R, above n 16.
[81] Although it was submitted on your behalf that you did not instigate any of the transactions when the protected witness was directed to uplift the drugs from you, you must have obtained the drugs from somewhere and you were trusted by Mr Thacker as the prime Auckland connection for the Mongols. Given the quantities of methamphetamine I have found to be involved, you were clearly relatively high up in the Mongols’ hierarchy at the time. When considering your role however, in terms of the Berkland factors, I consider them to be in the significant category rather than the leading category. In my view, you undertook management and operational functions, you were motivated by being part of the gang and financial gain and, in my view, you were aware and understood the scale of the Mongols’ operation in New Zealand.
[82] And importantly, and I have already referred to this, after [Mr Thacker was] arrested, you suggested you take on the national leadership role, which was evident from the screenshots on the protected witness’s Ciphr phone.
[83] In my view, your role in the Mongols is at the upper end, not the lower end, of significant with at least one factor that could indicate a leading role. To describe your role as obeying instructions does not, in my view, accurately record your seniority. As well, in terms of the factors indicating a leading role, I consider you had substantial links to and influence on others in the chain of command. I infer that, although Mr Thacker was the national president, you were trusted by him and on a par with the South Island president, Mr Ross. You had the ability to direct others in Auckland to undertake tasks for you. And, there is the obvious point, that I have already briefly referred to, that the methamphetamine in Auckland had to come from somewhere before it came to you. You must therefore have had links through the Mongols to get this methamphetamine from somewhere. And it is clear to me that you were trusted to do so.
[84]I assess your role to be at the upper end of significant.
Analogous cases
[85] I then deal with the analogous cases which I am not going to go through today but they will be in my written sentencing remarks that you will get a copy of.
[86] The case of Berkland involved two appeals for sentences imposed in relation to a significant methamphetamine supply operation.19 Mr Berkland was the “right- hand man” to Mr Blance, the mastermind of the operation. Mr Berkland pleaded guilty to seven charges relating to the possession and supply of methamphetamine (as well as ancillary firearm and other drug charges). The High Court, having found the quantum involved 15 kilograms and that he was placed at the upper end of the significant role, adopted a starting point of 16 years and six months’ imprisonment. This was reduced by the Supreme Court to 13 and a half years’ imprisonment after determining Mr Berkland’s role was within the mid-range of significant.
[87] In my view, your offending is more serious than Mr Berkland’s, although involving a similar amount of methamphetamine. As established above, I have assessed you as being at the upper level of significant. A starting point closer to that which was adopted by the High Court for Mr Berkland is therefore appropriate for you. But, in your case, there is also the organised criminal group charge to be taken into account.
[88] In Zhang v R, Mr Zhang received a starting point of 17 years’ imprisonment for one charge of importing 17.9 kilograms of methamphetamine, although the Court of Appeal observed that it would have adopted a starting point of 15 years under the new sentencing guidelines, having assessed the role played by Mr Zhang as at the lower end of significant.
[89] Although that offending involved a larger quantity of methamphetamine, I have assessed you as having a more significant role. Unlike you, there was no evidence demonstrating Mr Zhang took an active role in the supply stage of the operation, nor that he was involved in directing others.
[90] In R v Maciel,20 the offender received a 13 year starting point for methamphetamine offending concerning a quantity of 7.1 kilograms (rounded up from 7.096). He was assessed as being in the middle of the significant category. Relevant to that assessment was his operational function as the “runner” in the syndicate and
19 Berkland v R, above n 16.
20 R v Maciel [2021] NZHC 836.
being trusted to hand large amounts of drugs and money, as well as his financial motivations, and that he had travelled to New Zealand for the purposes of offending.
[91] In my view, your offending is more significant than that of Mr Maciel’s because of the greater amount of methamphetamine involved and your role.
[92] The defendant in R v Kim was involved in the same offending as in Maciel.21 Mr Kim was the storeman in the operation, stockpiling and repackaging drugs that were then supplied to other syndicate members, including at least 15 kilograms of methamphetamine which was the lead offending. Edwards J in the High Court found that Mr Kim was in the lower end of the significant category having regard to his operational function, that he was primarily motivated by financial reward, and had some awareness of the scale of the operation. A starting point of 14 years’ imprisonment was adopted.
[93] Like Mr Kim, you were aware of the scale of the operation and were motivated by financial reward. The quantum involved was also similar. But, in my view, your offending is more significant in terms of your role. Although you took directions from others above you in the chain of command, you also gave directions to those below you. You were the link between the original source of drugs and the supply chain. This is more than just being the storeman as Mr Kim was. A higher starting point is warranted.
[94] The Crown also submits, rightfully in my view, that your conviction of participation in an organised criminal group in respect of your involvement in the drug operation is an aggravating feature of your methamphetamine offending. I agree and factor this into setting the starting point.
[95] But bearing in mind all of those matters and analysing cases, I have assessed the starting point for your term of imprisonment to be 17 years.
21 R v Kim [2022] NZHC 952.
Uplift
[96]I then need to consider the uplift for your firearms offending.
[97] Your lawyer submitted an uplift of one year was appropriate. I accept your counsel’s submissions that, in respect of the events at Haukore Street, there is no evidence you were a principal party or that you were one of the shooters. However, I find it difficult to accept the submission that your involvement was limited to being present at the meeting at No. 2 Road prior to the shooting and encouraging others by your travel and attendance at the meeting. As I have said, it is unlikely, in my view, you travelled there to then not attend the Haukore Street with the others. And I also agree with the Crown that the fact you travelled from Auckland to participate increases the level of premeditation present.
[98] I find an uplift of 18 months’ imprisonment is appropriate to reflect your firearms offending, which brings your end starting point to one of 18 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.
Personal and mitigating matters
[99] I now talk about your personal and mitigating matters which I am going to suppress.
[100] I received a s 27 report and a PAC report as well as references from your mother, stepfather, a long-term family friend who is a psychologist, as well as the two emails from the Department of Corrections employee at Auckland Prison outlining your behaviour since you arrived at a unit there in March 2023. No doubt this was to address what was outlined by the PAC report writer about your behaviour in prison prior to being transferred to the unit at Auckland.
[101] I have read all of these reports and references carefully and several times. This is so I can understand the person you are, not just the person who appears before me today having offended. I have also considered however your previous conviction list and the conviction for assault with intent to injure that I have already referred to. You also have a history of offending in Australia including convictions for assault,
occasioning actual bodily harm in the company of others, and destroying or damaging property. You were sentenced to terms of imprisonment for both of them and released on conditions for the assault charge. But I also take into account what your family have said about how harsh the term of imprisonment was for you at a very young age.
[102] The PAC report refers to you fighting other prisoners and behaving threateningly towards staff members while on remand, but I accept only on four occasions and only two in respect of which you received misconduct notification. The report writer considered you should complete an anger management course and may benefit from work addressing what was referred to as “your proclivity for violence and anti-authoritarian attitude”, which the report writer said was exhibited through non- compliance with staff instructions and having unauthorised items, including phones, in your cell.
[103] In his submissions, your counsel submitted that you were surprised at the PAC report as you did not feel it reflected your interactions with the writer. It was submitted on your behalf that the report writer had formed a negative view of you and include inappropriate material in the report, and that the report would be of little use to me in sentencing you. Although the PAC report relied on a summary of facts, so that has to be disregarded, I do not accept the criticism that the report is cynical and mocking.
[104] You do not deny that your behaviour in prison initially was as outlined by the report writer. However, and to a certain extent, this is corroborated by the s 27 report which refers to you having had difficulties with authority. Despite this, your conversion to the Muslim faith appears to have been very positive. The recent reports about your behaviour since you have been in Auckland prison have been very positive. You have been compliant with staff instructions, and it is reported that you get on well with prisoners in the unit. There have been no incidents involving you since you arrived at the unit. And you have also taken advantage of the opportunities afforded to you. I acknowledge your change in attitude which is positive and a step in the right direction. You should be congratulated for your change of attitude.
[105] The s 27 report provided very helpful information about your background. You are now 29 years of age and an Australian national. You have spent all your life living
in Australia and therefore the term of imprisonment will be particularly hard for you because of that. But, more especially, you have a three year old son who you have tragically not seen since he was six months old. You are motivated by your son and do not want him to end up in the same situation you are in. Your son provides you with significant motivation to change and to rehabilitate. And gain, can I say, that is a very positive and worthwhile goal for you to have.
[106] As to your background, these are the matters that are personal and not to be reported.22
[107] […]
[108] […]
[109] […]
[110] […]
[111] […]
[112] […]
[113] […]
[114] […]
[115] […]
[116] You joined the Mongols largely through your friendship with Mr Thacker. And it appears that when you were released from prison in Australia, you had a falling out with the Bandidos and became unattached to any gang over there. And you say you joined the Mongols in New Zealand because of what happened and you didn’t have anything else to do.
22 They can be internally published for the use of counsel and legal databases, but not in the media.
[117] I accept that you are now motivated by your son to turn your life around. And I acknowledge, as I have said, some of the positive steps you have taken towards this goal. You display insight into how you have found yourself in this position.
[118] Having read the references from your mother and stepfather, I am also satisfied that, should you be willing to accept their help, they will, once you are released from prison, assist you to reintegrate into society. Overall, I consider the prospects for a successful rehabilitation for you, should you choose to continue on this path, to be good.
[119] I agree with the report writer that the instability of care and housing you experienced in your childhood, your father’s mental illness, the limited education you received, the normalisation of violence and unmedicated ADHD are factors which have all contributed to your substance and alcohol use and your involvement in gangs. There is, in my view, a very direct nexus between your background and your offending.
[120] In terms of what discount should apply to these personal circumstances, your lawyer submitted 20 per cent and the Crown submitted 15 per cent.
[121] In my view, the strength of the causative link between your background and personal circumstances growing up, as well as your rehabilitative potential, and the fact that you will be distanced from family during your incarceration, warrants a discount of 20 per cent.
End sentence
[122] Taking into account however the total starting point of 18 years six months’ imprisonment I have adopted and allowing the discount for mitigating matters, your end term of imprisonment will be 14 years and nine months.
Minimum period of imprisonment
[123]I now address whether a minimum period of imprisonment should be imposed.
[124] The Crown seeks the maximum possible MPI of 66 per cent.23 And I go on to talk about the cases which outline what factors need to be taken into account. Again, I am not going to read that out now but it will be there for you to read in my sentencing notes.
[125] In Zhang, the Court observed that MPIs should not be imposed mechanistically or as a matter of routine.24 Lengthy MPIs are to be reserved for cases featuring significant commercial drug dealing,25 in other words, for the most deserving cases.26
[126] Under s 86(2) of the Sentencing Act, I may impose an MPI if I am satisfied the minimum period of one-third is insufficient for the purposes of accountability, denunciation, deterrence and community protection. I recognise that the serious nature of your offending calls for, in particular, deterrence and denunciation.
[127] Your rehabilitative potential is of relevance here because it goes some way towards protecting the community from any further offending by you. I am satisfied a minimum period of imprisonment is possibly not required to meet this purpose but it remains to be seen if your current positive path can be maintained.
[128] I note that you have failed to express what I class as genuine remorse for your offending. While you want to do better in the future for your son, in my view, you have not sufficiently acknowledged the harm your offending has caused to the community. This speaks to accountability. As well, deterrence and denunciation are particularly important with this kind of offending. Drug dealing generally, but methamphetamine especially, causes irreparable harm to families and communities. And this harm is often felt inter-generationally, which means by future generations as well.
[129] You were part of a large-scale drug operation that moved and supplied kilograms of methamphetamine up and down the country. Your offending involved just over 15 kgs of methamphetamine. Taking this into consideration, in my view, a
23 Sentencing Act 2002, s 86(4).
24 Zhang v R, above n 4, at [169] and [174].
25 At [171].
26 Sentencing Act, s 8(c).
minimum period of imprisonment is needed. However, this is not to the extent the Crown seeks. Although your offending consisted of significant commercial drug dealing, it is not the worst of cases. I consider a minimum period of 40 percent is warranted. This means you must serve a minimum period of five years and 10 months’ imprisonment, which I have rounded down, before you are eligible for parole.
Result
[130] So, in summary Mr Collins-Haskins, your end sentence will be a term of imprisonment of 14 years nine months. And I am imposing an MPI of 40 per cent.
[131]If you could please stand.
[132] Mr Collins-Haskins, you will be convicted and sentenced to a term of 14 years nine months’ imprisonment as follows:
(a) on charges 14 and 42 - 14 years nine months;
(b) on charges 28, 29, 34, 38 and 47 – 12 years;
(c) on charge 36 – 10 years;
(d) on charge 61 and charge 1 – seven years; and
(e) on charges 54, 55 and 58A – three years.
[133] As I have said, I impose a minimum period of imprisonment of 40 per cent on all charges.
[134] I have decided not to impose the sentence as a cumulative sentence on your term of assault with intent to injure because what I have imposed is a significant sentence in itself.
[135]Thank you. You can stand down now please.
Harland J
0